by softball66 » October 10th, 2010, 8:02 am
Thank you Mike! Fine, informative post!
Raises several ideas and questions for me.
1. I helped the Southworth family indirectly with a glove Billy used and was later put in an auction. The daughter had thought it was a Doak glove but it turned out to be the Southworth model. I thought, at the time, or inferred that Bill was "in" on the glove design. Changing the "looseness" of the web alters the action of the web. Remember the stiffness of the earlier flat webs and Doak's laces relaxed this form making the upper pocket area more flexible. Though this went back to a flat web style you could see that it was a workable idea.
2. Thanks to Mike, finding out that Harry "Doc" Latina wasn't the only glove design guru at Rawlings. Add in the names of Elmer Nolte and Charles Whitley. (who remembers or even knows anything about them?)
3. I believe in patent grants, in layman's terms, the judge has to decide whether the proposed design is too close to an existing patent or is borrowing too much of the previous grant to become a patent of its own. Remember the Valdez Modelo Goldsmith had which may have gotten its patent from Mexico.
4. Obviously the tube idea by Whitley was to strengthen the weak single lacing of the web, which when I first saw those lace webs, I wondered how they would take to a pounding and probably had to be
constantly replaced. If we remember when the tunnel loops came out in the 1930s, it was first one, then two, then three tunnel loops for added strength and even then we found players, on their own, using bandage tape to brace and strengthen the webs. This finally leading the the full solid (or what we call) the barrel web of the early 1940s.
Focus of these Rawlings' web designs shown are intended to strengthen the web primarily.
Wish more of you forum members would "pitch in" on Mike's handy posts.